I'd love ubuntu, my only real problem with it is it's owned by a company and not community backed
Canonical wants to be Microsoft so goddamn bad they can taste it
By doing what exactly? Snap's server being proprietary doesn't affect anyone at all, what else?
it uses snap (less packages and security than flatpak), app.armor (less secure than Selinux), has a history of anti-privacy integrations (like sending user keystrokes to amazon), still collects some user data. Tumbleweed is better. Great kde implementation, strong security, a lot of cutting-edge software, stability, beginner-friendly
sending user keystrokes to Amazon
That's a very serious allegation to make without citing any source.
Still collects some user data
Someone has already pointed out, no data is collected unless the user opts in. But, my question is what's wrong with collecting anonyomized telemetry about most used hardware and most used/unused software features? It helps developers make better decisions.
False (except for less packages, that's true), false, the amazon incident was a honest mistake and only applied to the search bar in unity (even more specifically the amazon lense), and no data is being collected unless you enable it during the install. https://youtu.be/rdPt8WB1lZw
Also are you serious? A rolling release distro with automated package builds being more secure? Last time I checked Tumbleweed got affected by the XZ exploit.
I was pretty neutral towards Ubuntu, up until an automatic system update removed my deb Firefox and replaced it with the snap version, even though I specifically set the apt repo to a higher priority.
The entire reason I left Windows is because I don't want (for example) Edge shoved down my throat after every update, and yet Ubuntu has gone and done the exact same thing with snaps.
After literal hours of fighting, the only solution I found was to fully disable automatic updates. With Pop OS I have all the benefits of Ubuntu, but I also get a company (System76) that does cool stuff and doesn't try shoving snaps down my throat.
Other than snaps, gnome, and the fucking painful default taskbar it's pretty good yeah. It just works™️.
I hate GNOME lol, I wouldn't be using Linux today if I had stuck with Ubuntu. If you like it, that's cool. I respect it, I just can't stand using it myself.
... And Canonical...
I'm a very happy Manjaro user and have been for more than 5 years.
Let's just say it doesn't seem to be a popular opinion around here!
I learned better in 2012 when they tried to put an Amazon search bar in their start menu, the same thing people are complaining about with windows today.
If I wanted to use corposhit I would have stayed with windows.
The snaps bad echo chamber
Snaps bad because proprietary
Pre installed Nvidia good because propriety no wait video games!
Ubuntu's mission was always to build bridges between the user and tech and businesses that the gnu side of Linux wouldn't.
It's a good just works distro that has spawned a ton of just works distros and sane server defaults. I see Ubuntu on the same level as macos.
snaps bad because slow
Snaps bad because shoving updates down throats.
snaps bad because 
Are they though? They were at one point, but even then I've not seen comparative slowness compared to the equivalent Flatpaks. In some cases I've seen them be slow compared to native packages, but even that seems to have all but disappeared for me.
That link includes a whole lot of old things as well as blog posts about how they sped up the performance of the Firefox snap, after which there doesn't seem to be much, if any, further evidence of the snap being slow.
I don't like snaps because it's just another Canonical NIH thing. Everyone else agreed on flatpak which seems to have a good design with portals and all and being fully open.
On the other hand, you have snaps, which is being controlled by Canonical as the server component is l non-public. The packages sometimes work worse than normal debs and the flatpak version (steam being a notable example IIRC).
There is 0 motivation for me as a user to look into that. They have solved the problem in one of the worst ways possible. Even Mint, which is Ubuntu's biggest downstream, has opted against including it by default.
In addition to all of that, Canonical also installs applications as snap when using the apt\£* command line tools.
So you have a system that is
Ubuntu's mission was always to build bridges between the user and tech and businesses that the gnu side of Linux wouldn't.
Which bridge did they build with snaps?
It's a good just works distro that has spawned a ton of just works distros
Which in turn have removed snaps by default and replaced the affected packages with native ones because it often didn't "just work"
I don't like snaps because it's just another Canonical NIH thing. Everyone else agreed on flatpak which seems to have a good design with portals and all and being fully open.
Snaps both predate flatpak and do things that Flatpaks are not designed to do.
Canonical have also been a part of the desktop portals standard for a very long time, as they've been a part of how snaps do things.
Snaps both predate flatpak and do things that Flatpaks are not designed to do.
By less than a year judging by the article... and for individual applications, there was AppImage.
Snaps can do things flatpaks can't do. Which is true but also kind of irrelevant if we're talking about a means to distribute applications in a cross-distribution manner as opposed to a base system A/B partition solution.
Or am I misunderstanding?
The claim that snaps are a Canonical NIH thing is falsified by those two facts. Even if Canonical said "okay, we'll distribute desktop apps with Flatpak," that wouldn't affect the vast majority of their ongoing effort for snaps, which are related to things that Flatpak simply doesn't do. Instead, they'd have the separate work of making the moving target of flatpaks work with their snap-based systems such as Ubuntu Core while still having to fully maintain that snap based ecosystem for the enterprise customers who use it for things that Flatpak simply doesn't do.
I like Snaps. They can do more than Flatpak and when packaged well they just work. Sadly some apps on Snapcraft are abandoned or they just don't work, but the same can be said about Flathub.
Which bridge did they build with snaps?
Proprietary companies are compelled to release on Snapcraft because it gives them advantages over other packaging methods. I'm just a user but I heard Snaps are easy to work with thanks to the documentation.
In addition to all of that, Canonical also installs applications as snap when using the apt\£* command line tools.
Firefox for example isn't even in their apt repos. So instead of throwing an error, the Firefox meta package installs the snap, and tells you it's doing that.
But I understand that Ubuntu isn't for you if you want to avoid snaps.
Everyone should use what suits them best. My negative opinion on snaps doesn't mean Ubuntu shouldn't ship it or that users shouldn't use it. It's Canonical's distribution, they can put into it whatever they want for all I care, and if users are happy with it, good for them. But I can still criticize it for perceived issues. (Edit: kind of a straw man since nobody said I couldn't, I just wanted to stress that I'm not authoritative on the matter)
But I understand that Ubuntu isn’t for you if you want to avoid snaps.
I used Ubuntu in the past, from I think 2004 or maybe 2005 to 2008, but switched away because of other issues that I don't remember anymore, but I do remember upgrades between major versions were always pain with an Nvidia card (this was before AMD or in the beginning even ATI cards were well-usable under Linux) and I honestly just prefer rolling release nowadays. But snaps are just not at all compelling anyways.
The only reason I don't like snap is because useful mount information gets buried in 5 million "loop" mounts.
I don't get why anybody uses Ubuntu. Just use Debian. It's basically more stable and functional Ubuntu, but without snaps and you don't need an entire distro branch for different DEs.
Rant, but not at you.
Well I would use Debian, but the last two systems I tried to install it on hung at some point in the install process. I tried multiple times, multiple downloads, multiple versions (across multiple months!), and these are two separate machines from two different vendors.
Debian is fine on my server boxes, but fuck me it's dogshit in a consumer environment. One of those laptops has - and is an absolute necessity to have working - WWAN. I tried over a dozen distros, from 'easy and popular' to 'obscure and edge-case'. Ubuntu (actually Kubuntu, I like KDE) was literally the only distro to 1) boot, 2) install, and 3) have working WWAN (after fucking with the fcc-unlock shit and filling my carrier details). Nothing, literally nothing else could do this simple task.
Linux is great, they say. It's easy. It's simple to install and use. It puts you in control. These are ideas that the Linux community wants to believe, that I want to believe, but it's just not. Given the right circumstances, with the right hardware, and the right use-case, it's good. Stray anywhere off the beaten path and unless you're a veteran *nix sysadmin who values their time as $0, sometimes you're just fucked. I would know, I've been using various distros on and off for 20 years. It's still bad. I don't understand how, but here we are.
I don't like Ubuntu for a few reasons, but in my experience, the situation sucks the least when you use it. Sometimes - see above WWAN bullshit - it's the only thing that works.
And that's fucking bullshit, but it's a fact. And even interested users, who like to tinker, have a limit to what they will put up with before throwing in the towel and using what works.
Because it's a popular distro. Because when you look for “how to X in linux”, there's a 90% chance the response will be about Ubuntu. Because your workplace said so. The list goes on.
Ubuntu is Debian with lipstick so that all still applies
Yeah but everything that I named would say Ubutnu. That's important. Until you know more, you'll already be using Ubuntu. That's why “anybody uses Ubuntu”.
Because you don't have to know what to do already if you start with Ubuntu. You have to know your way around the Linux world more if you use Debian
I don't get why anyone uses windows 7,8,8.1,11, use Linux mint (windows 10 is replaced with a distro that uses kde plasma)
Hey, you should be careful around Ubuntu fans. They might just snap.
arch
Careful with that XZ package
The cool thing about Arch is that with some learning, time and effort, you can make it function just like Ubuntu
I don't know if serious or burn
Ubuntu in ~2015 was peak Linux (for me). Everything worked flawlessly with zero bugs, even printers. It's been downhill ever since with the exception of Steam Proton, but even then I've had more bugs with Steam in the past couple years then I did in 2013.
That behavior fucking sucks actually
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.